If the numbers in rural Georgia or Texas counties are like those in rural Nevada counties…yeah, don’t get excited. Enthusiasm is high on both sides.
MikeJ
5521
Sort of a sampling of the 20% of the model outcomes where Republicans hold both houses and the 20% that Dems gain both houses.
Here’s what happened: Democrats picked up only 16 House seats, short of the 23 they needed to take control of the House. They might win another one or two once California finishes counting its returns, but they’re not going to get to 23.
And in the Senate — oh, boy.
Democratic incumbents lost in North Dakota, Missouri and Indiana. And they didn’t gain any Republican seats, although there’s a chance that Kyrsten Sinema could win Arizona if it goes to a recount (don’t get your hopes up, Democrats — she’d need almost everything to go right). So it looks like we’ll end up with a 54-46 Republican-controlled Senate.
There were a few bright spots for Democrats. Andrew Gillum won the Florida gubernatorial election. Republican Gov. Scott Walker lost by 2 points in Wisconsin. But overall, Republicans beat their polls by an average of 2 to 3 points — a lot like 2016, to be honest.
Democratic turnout was high. But GOP turnout was high too, and the election was fought in very red places.
On the brighter side:
Well, folks. I just got back from the future. It turns out that Democrats had a really, really good night. They’re going to win somewhere between 53 and 55 House seats, depending on a couple of California districts. And they somehow won the Senate, thanks to Texas! I guess Beto O’Rourke is going to be our next president now.
Democrats won Arizona by 7 (!) and Nevada by 5 (!). Pollsters really underestimated Democratic performance in the Southwest.
The Democrats made huge gains in California, and it’s not out of the question that Republican Rep. Devin Nunes could lose once all the mail ballots are counted (although I wouldn’t bet on it).
Matt_W
5522
I think 538’s data analysis is pretty amazing. But their punditry is pretty not amazing: lots of filler, lots of talking out of their asses. This an example of the latter. Surprisingly, for a polling aggregator, prognostication isn’t their strong suit. The raw numbers are great up-front, but their best writing is in their post-election analyses.
Agreed. As statisticians, Silver and his crew are great.
As pundits, they’re only a little better than most other pundits (i.e., pretty much worthless).
MikeJ
5524
Do they have a way to see specific samples from their simulation? That would be an interesting way to see similar information to the chat, which I agree is not the best writing.
I do think that it’s important to keep in mind the variability in the outcome.
JonRowe
5525
Coming from someone who has played a lot of D&D, probabilities are fun, but that 1 on a 20, or 5% chance ends up happening more than you would like.
75% likely is still 25% likely the other way, and that is rolling a one on a 4 sided dice. It happens a lot.
So now GOP wants to make an issue of Stacy Abrams burning a Georgia State Flag 25 years ago?
I feel like African Americans can get a pass on burning anything that includes an emblem of the nation that was formed on the ‘cornerstone’ of their racial inferiority (per Alexander Stephens).
But then, I’m just a wacky liberal.
I’m aware, as paragraph two of my post indicates.
Well, I’ll be disappointed when the elections are over because there will be no new Fire Ted Cruz ads.
I hope they have some impact (aside from my amusement).
You’re not watching John Oliver? WTH is wrong with you, sir?
Dude has some political chops!
KevinC
5532
He does, but my oh my does that moderator have a punchable face or what?
Mia Love looking fairly vulnerable in the Utah-04. Did not see that coming.
KevinC
5535
Just anecdotal, but I’m not seeing a lot of local enthusiasm for McAdams among Democrats here, so I worry that might be an issue. That being said, they’re pretty motivated in an anti-Trump way so maybe it’ll be enough. It’s my SO’s district for one last election, so as least she gets to cast a vote that might matter.
I also have to drive past a billboard that literally is just “McAdams = Pelosi” every morning on my way to work. Between that and Utah drivers, it starts my day with a simmering hatred for my fellow man.
This Tuesday’s It’s Been a Minute with Sam Sanders has an interesting conversation about the idea of 2018 being the “Year of the Woman” which is well worth a listen.
The bit that stuck out for me most actually wasn’t about “Year of the Woman” at all. It was in the conversation with Stacey Adams (Georgia gubernatorial candidate) when Sam asked her about the idea of a “united” Democratic message. Adams said that Democrats aren’t going to have a united message in terms of specific policies, because the party is just too diverse to come together like that. But it is possible to be united in terms of beliefs (health care is a right, rich should pay their fair share, etc) and that’s the messaging that needs to be happening in order to win.
That’s an interesting take on the oft-repeated refrain of “Democrats can’t get together on-message”. It comes with the built-in problem of what to do if you do get into power…if you can’t agree on how to implement policies for those beliefs that you share, what good does it do to get elected in the first place?
Enidigm
5539
Like all things Vice, the devil is in the editing. Still, it was interesting to see 8 Democrat and 8 Republicans in a room in Texas, which itself seems a rare enough thing. Just the first minute or so watching voters rattle off this laundry list of imaginary attributes at their candidates really shows how so much of the electoral process now is projecting your values and beliefs (or fears) onto candidates.
